Duane T. Gish's (modified) sentences

The sentences below were taken from the book entitled Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics, written by German-American creationary scientist Duane Tolbert Gish [Gisch], Ph.D. In this book he answers the criticisms and attacks of his evolutionary opponents. This book is written from a creationary point of view by a Christian young-earth creationist. Duane Gish is a theistic creationary creationist [German/Deutsch: kreationärer Kreationist, Norwegian/Norsk: kreasjonær kreasjonist], not a theistic evolutionary creationist [evolutionärer Kreationist, evolusjonær kreasjonist] or a creationary evolutionist [kreationärer Evolutionist, kreasjonær evolusjonist] or an atheistic evolutionary evolutionist [evolutionärer Evolutionist, evolusjonær evolusjonist].

In the quoted sentences below I have purposely put the adjectives [creationary] and evolutionary in bold letters to highlight the symmetrical wording that I am encouraging speakers and writers to adopt and consistently use when discussing the issue of creation/evolution. I urge all fair-minded people to add the adjective creationary to their own active core vocabulary and to begin to use it alongside the parallel adjective evolutionary in their speech and writing. The adjective creationary ought to be used each and every time the issue of creation/evolution is covered. If it is true that evolutionary and creationary writers consider the adjective evolutionary to be an indispensable word in their active vocabulary, then, following the same logic, the corresponding morphologically parallel adjective creationary ought to be equally indispensable, especially in the context of the evolution-creation debate.

Forward

English language:

creation/evolution (nouns/attributive nouns)
creational/evolutional (adjectives)
creationary/evolutionary (adjectives)

creationism/evolutionism (nouns/attributive nouns)
creationist/evolutionist (nouns/attributive nouns)
creationistic/evolutionistic (adjectives)

German language:

Kreation (Schöpfung)/Evolution (Entwicklung) (Substantive)
kreational/kreationell/evolutional/evolutionell (Adjektive)
kreationär/evolutionär (Adjektive)

Kreationismus/Evolutionismus (Substantive)
Kreationist/Evolutionist (Substantive)
kreationistisch/evolutionistisch (Adjektive)

Norwegian language:

kreasjon (skapelse)/evolusjon (utvikling) (substantiver)
kreasjonell/evolusjonell (adjektiver)
kreationær/evolusjonær (adjektiver)

kreasjonisme/evolusjonisme (substantiver)
kreasjonist/evolusjonist (substantiver)
kreasjonistisk/evolusjonistisk (adjektiver)

French language:

création/évolution (substantifs)
créationnel/évolutionnel (adjectifs)
créationnaire/évolutionnaire (adjectifs)

créationnisme/évolutionnisme (substantifs)
créationniste/évolutionniste (substantifs)
créationniste/évolutionniste (adjectifs [substantifs adjectivaux])

Forword (The foreword was written by Henry Madison Morris.)

Furthermore, there are well over a hundred other [creationary] organizations, each with at least some scientists in their memberships. There are probably 25 other nations outside the United States with similar [creationary] organizations. (p. iv - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[Of course, in changing the wording from "creationist organizations" to "creationary organizations", the focus shifts from something like "organizations promoting creationism" or "organizations of or for creationists" to something like "organizations promoting creation" or "creation-based organizations" or "organizations accepting creation [and rejecting evolution]". The words "creationist" and "creationary" are not synonymous. (The words "creationist", "creationistic", and "creationism" are closely related words.) The words "creation" and "creationism" are also not synonymous. The adjectives "creational/creationary" and "evolutional/evolutionary" are true synonyms because they derive directly from the nouns "creation" and "evolution" respectively.]

But these [creationary] scientists do have their critics. (p. v - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Both of these very eminent, widely read scientists have published bitter diatribes against creation and [creationary] scientists. (p. v - Henry M. Morris is referring to Jewish-American agnostic Stephen Jay Gould (who was also a Marxist) and Russian-Jewish-American atheist Isaac Asimov.)

[Creationary] scientists do have their critics! (p. v - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Since he joined ICR in 1971 he has participated in almost 300 formal creation/evolution debates, usually held on university campuses and opposing faculty evolutionary scientists, or—once in a while—an evolutionary philosopher or even an evolutionary theologian. (p. vi - How many creationary scientists, creationary philosophers, and creationary theologians can you list?)

Most of the [anti-creationary] books and articles take essentially the same approach. That is, they are [anti-creationary] more than [pro-evolutionary]. Most of them repeat the same [anti-creationary] polemics that others have used, making the same unwarranted accusations, again and again. (p. vi - I changed the "adjectival words" (attributive nouns) "anti-creationist" and "pro-evolutionist" to the genuine adjectives "anti-creationary" and "pro-evolutionary".)

Consequently, Dr. Gish has concentrated on only a few of the more influential of the [anti-creationary] books, showing conclusively that the criticisms are completely invalid. (p. vi - I changed "anti-creationist" to "anti-creationary".)

[Google search (including newsgroups) for 2006.05.06—"antievolutionary book" (about 6; 2); "anti-evolutionary book" (about 25; 1); "antievolutionary books" (about 4; 1); "anti-evolutionary books" (about 25; 7); "antievolutionist book" (about 3; 0); "anti-evolutionist book" (about 5; 3); "antievolutionist books" (about 2; 0); "anti-evolutionist books" (about 13; 0); "antievolution book" (about 40; 6); "anti-evolution book" (about 190; 125); "antievolution books" (about 80; 4); "anti-evolution books" (about 200; 57); "anticreationary book" (about 4; 0); "anti-creationary book" (about 5; 1); "anticreationary books" (2; 0); "anti-creationary books" (2; 0); "anticreationist book" (about 87; 2); "anti-creationist book" (about 173; 27); "anticreationist books" (about 68; 4); "anti-creationist books" (about 153; 37); "anticreation book" (1; 0); "anti-creation book" (about 30; 8); "anticreation books" (1; 0); "anti-creation books" (about 56; 9)]

The latter is the main theme of the book, of course, and I would strongly urge anyone who has been influenced by one of the [anti-creationary] books to read this book carefully before he decides to go along with the evolutionary world view. (p. vii - I changed the attributive noun "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjective "anti-creationary".)

I have known him not only as a [creationary] colleague, but as personal friend for 30 years. (p. vii - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the genuine adjective "creationary". cf. "creationist colleague", "evolutionist colleague", "creationary colleague", "evolutionary colleague")

He is also a man of courage, having served with distinction as an officer in the South Pacific during World War II, and he is not the least bit intimidated by the ad hominem arguments of his evolutionary opponents, as so many evangelicals seem to be. (p. vii - cf. "evolutionist opponents", "creationist opponents", "evolutionary opponents", "evolutionary opponents".)

Introduction

By the turn of the century, [evolutionary] theory was being taught dogmatically in most major universities throughout the world. (p. ix - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

[evolution theory/evolutionary theory and creation theory/creationary theory—When nouns like "evolution" or "creation" modify other nouns (in this case "theory") they are called attributive nouns. It is true that attributive nouns function like adjectives, but they do not have the form or structure of an adjective. The words evolutionary and creationary are genuine adjectives that derive from the nouns evolution and creation. I am trying to encourage creationists (and evolutionists) to use the genuine adjective "creationary" when they modify various nouns, e.g., "creationary perspective", "creationary viewpoint", "creationary worldview", "creationary astronomy", "creationary biology", "creationary genetics", "creationary hypothoses", "creationary evidence", "creationary textbooks", etc.]

[cf. English, German, Norwegian, French: creationary theory/evolutionary theory - theory of creation/theory of evolution - creation theory/evolution theory; kreationäre Theorie/evolutionäre Theorie - Kreationstheorie/Evolutionstheorie [creation-'s-theory/evolution-'s-theory]- Schöpfungstheorie/Entwicklungstheorie [creation-'s-theory/development-'s-theory]; kreasjonær teori/evolusjonær teori - kreasjonsteori/evolusjonsteori [creation-'s-theory/evolution-'s-theory]- skapelsesteori/utviklingsteori [creation-'s-theory/development-'s-theory]; théorie créationnaire/théorie évolutionnaire - théorie de la création/théorie de l'évolution [theory of (the) creation/theory of (the) evolution]]

Through the agency of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study and a multi-million-dollar grant from the National Science Foundation, evolutionists produced three high-school biology books with evolutionary theory as their fundamental thesis, and obtained adoption of these books in the majority of high schools in the U.S. (p. ix)

These events served to galvanize [creationary] scientists into action. (p. ix - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Beginning with the publication of The Genesis Flood, by John Whitcomb and Henry Morris in 1961, the organization of the Creation Research Society, the Bible-Science Association, and the Institute for Creation Research, in 1963, 1964, and 1972, respectively, as well as many other [creationary]-science organizations throughout the world, the [creationary] scientists fought back. (p. ix - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

In response to the highly effective lectures, seminars, and debates (almost always won by creationists, according to evolutionists), and the many books and publications produced by [creationary] scientists, evolutionists finally awakened and reacted vigorously to this challenge to their dogmatic control of the scientific and educational establishments and domination of public thinking. (p. ix - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

As part of their campaign to mute the [creationary] scientists, they poured forth an avalanche of journal articles and books attacking [creationary] scientists and [creationary] science. (p. ix - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

For the most part, these attacks have been vicious, with [creationary] scientists being accused of all sorts of perfidy, distortion, dishonesty, and poor science. (p. ix - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Evolutionary] science and evolutionists have suffered severely as a result of exposure by [creationary] scientists, and it shows. (pp. ix- x - I changed "evolution" and "creation" to "evolutionary" and "creationary".)

The main strategies and arguments of evolutionists are analyzed, [creationary] arguments are defended, and charges by evolutionists that [creationary] scientists have used distortion, dishonesty, misquotes, quotes out of context, and poor science are refuted. (p. x - I changed the attributive nouns "creationist" and "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[cf. "Creationist arguments" are "arguments of a creationist"/"arguments of creationists"/"arguments for creationism". The focus is on the "creationist" or "creationists" or on "creationism".]

[cf. ("evolutionist/evolutionistic argument", "creationist/creationistic argument"; "evolutionistisches Argument", "kreationistisches Argument"; "evolutionist/evolutionistic arguments", "creationist/creationistic arguments"; "evolutionistische Argumente", "kreationistische Argumente") ("Creationary arguments" are "arguments for creation"/"arguments in favor of creation"/"creation-based arguments"/"arguments based on [the concept or theory of ] creation". The focus is on "creation".)]

1 [Creationary] Scientists Challenge the Dogma of Evolution

(p. 11 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Thus, while it is easy enought for a [creationary] scientist to publish the results of his research in a narrow technical field, or even to criticize a particular evolutionary mechanism or phylogeny, most attempts to publish an article which challenged the validity of evolutionary theory itself or to suggest that creation is a preferable or even a credible alternative to evolution simply became futile. (p. 12 - I changed "creation scientist" to "creationary scientist".)

In fact, Simpson, America's premier evolutionary paleontologist during those years, strongly maintained that the same evolutionary forces involved in the production of variations within species, if extrapolated over vast time spans, were sufficient to explain all of evolution. (p. 12)

Evolutionists, however, were concerned about the fact that most high school biology textbooks used in the United States devoted limited space to evolutionary theory. (pp. 12-13)

All emphasized evolutionary theory throughout. (p. 13 - "All" here refers to the three Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) high-school biology textbooks.)

Henry Morris, in one of his classics, The History of Modern Creationism, has described the efforts of creationists during the past 50 years to expose the fallacies and weaknesses in evolutionary theory and to describe the admirable way in which the evidence related to origins can be correlated and explained by creation. (p. 13)

In 1966, the Wistar Institute in Philadelphia hosted a symposium in which six mathematicians challenged the neo-Darwinian mechanism before a group of evolutionary biologists. (p. 14)

[Evolutionary] theory poured forth unchallenged on television, over radio, in the daily press, and in popular magazines, such as the National Geographic, Reader's Digest, Life, and newspaper weeklies. (p. 15 - I changed "evolution" to "evolutionary".)

The book was a direct assault on the entire evolutionary concept of the origin and history of the earth and of living things. (p. 15 - The "book", here, refers to the book, The Genesis Flood.)

Although publication of The Genesis Flood may not have attracted much attention in secular circles, it did have considerable impact in Christian circles, even thought its main themes, the support for the Genesis Flood and the attack on [evolutionary] theory, were rejected by most of the science faculty at such Christian colleges as Calvin College and Wheaton College. (p.15 - I changed "evolution" to "evolutionary".)

During the latter part of the sixties, [creationary] scientists became more and more active, lecturing mainly to church groups but also in some secular schools and colleges. (p. 16 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

During these years, evolutionists chose to ignore the efforts of [creationary] scientists, since they felt that the threat to their monopolistic control of the scientific and educational establishments was non-existent. (p. 16 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

One event that caught their attention and galvanized them into action was the efforts of creationists before the Board of Education of the State of California in 1972 to institute the teaching of the scientific evidence for creation along with [evolutionary] theory in public schools. (p. 16 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

This effort met with very little success, but these activities did serve to alert evolutionists and the public in general to the burgeoning activities of [creationary] scientists. (p. 16 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Included as a division of the college was a [creationary] science research center. (p. 16 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Soon after the founding of the Institute for Creation Research (or ICR, as it is popularly known), Dr. Morris and the author began to challenge the evolutionary establishment directly as they presented [creationary] science lectures on major university campuses throughout the United States, Canada, and many other countries. (p. 17 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

As others joined the staff, they too carried the challenge against [evolutionary] theory to high school and college campuses. (p. 17 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

Soon the notion was conceived of conducting debates between [creationary] scientists and [evolutionary] scientists on university campuses, in city auditoriums, schools, and churches. (p. 17 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "evolution" to the genuine adjectives "evolutionary" and "evolutionary".)

The [creationary] scientists , feeling confident that the scientific evidence was solidly on their side, readily accepted invitations to participate in these debates. (p. 17 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

While the Institute for Creation Research is recognized as the leading [creationary] science organization in the world, many other [creationary] science organizations now exist in the U.S. and other countries. (p. 17 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

In his book, The History of Modern Creationism, Dr. Morris lists 76 national, state, and local [creationary] organizations in the U.S. and 33 [creationary] organizations in other countries. (p. 17 - I changed the attributive noun "creationist" to the adjective "creationary".) (cf. creationistic = kreationistisch (genuine adjectives/echte Adjektive) and creationist = Kreationist (genuine nouns-substantives/echte Substantive))

[Creationary] efforts are not limited to Christians, but include the efforts of Jewish and Moslem scientists as well. (p. 17 - I changed "creationist" to "creationary".)

There is also a very considerable number of scientists who, while not accepting creation as an alternative, nevertheless are severely critical of modern [evolutionary] theory. (p. 18)

Other events which drew great interest from both creationists and evolutionists from all around the world were the legal battles that erupted in the states of Arkansas and Louisiana over laws passed by the legislatures of those two states requiring balanced treatment of [creationary] science and [evolutionary] science in the public schools. (p. 18 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "evolution" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionray".)

More than anything, evolutionists fear an open, free, and thorough scientific challenge to evolutionary theory in the public schools. (p. 18)

They have learned from their experiences in debates and other open exchanges that evolutionary theory comes off second best when faced with a scientific challenge from well-informed [creationary] scientists. (p. 18 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

They apparently are determined to use whatever means they feel are necessary to blunt and eventually to destroy the efforts of [creationary] scientists to make known the empty rhetoric that makes up evolutionary stories and the nature of the scientific evidence that supports creation. (p. 19 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

During the past ten years or so, over 30 books have been published attacking creationists and [creationary] science, and a blizzard of articles have appeared in scientific and quasi-scientific journals attacking creationists. (p. 19 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

In fact, today almost every issue of these journals either contains an [anti-creationary] article or contains an article which includes an attack against, or a reference to, creationists or [creationary] science. (p. 19 - I changed the attributive nouns "anti-creationist" and "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

One thing is certain—creationists and their scientific arguments are no longer being ignored by the evolutionary establishment. (p. 19)

One tactic commonly employed by evolutionists is to viciously attack the intellectual honesty and scientific integrity of [creationary] scientists. (p. 19 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists are not only accused of lacking scientific objectivity, but they are accused of misquoting, quoting out of context, distorting science, and telling outright lies. (p. 19 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

References

12. Niles Eldredge, The Monkey Business. A Scientist Looks at Creation [-ism], Washington Square Press, New York, 1982, p. 17. (p. 20 - I changed "Creationism" to "Creation". cf. "Evolutionism", "Creationism", "Evolution", "Creation")

2 Evolutionists Mount a Counterattack

Educators became alarmed by the effects on students of the lectures, seminars, and debates involving [creationary] scientists, as evidenced by the essays and classroom questions and challenges supporting creation. (p. 21 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Especially disturbing to evolutionists were the many appearances by [creationary] scientists on TV and radio, the numerous books and other literature pouring forth from [creationary] scientists, particularly from those on the staff of the Institute for Creation Research, and the equal emphasis laws passed by overwhelming majorities in the state legislatures in Arkansas and Louisiana, and similar efforts in other states. (p. 21 - I changed "creation" to "creationary". [ICR could have been called the "Institute for Creationary Research".])

It was signed by 102 leading humanistic evolutionary scientists and was published in The Humanist, the AHA publication, and was distributed to educational authorities throughout the U.S. (p. 22)

His rebuttal was weak and boring, and was more damaging than helpful to the [evolutionary] cause. (p. 22 - I changed the attributive noun "evolutionist" to genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

Dr. Joan Creager, the editor who succeeded Dr. Carter, made it clear that under her editorship, no further [creationary articles] were to be published except those that were critical. (p. 22 - I changed "articles about creation" to "creationary articles".)

In about 1980, Dr. Wayne Moyer, then the executive secretary of the NABT and now on the staff of Norman Lear's so-called "People for the American Way," an ultra-liberal organization that wars against the precepts of Biblical Christianity, began circulating a newsletter specifically dedicated to fighting the efforts of [creationary] scientists and to help and advise evolutionists in their [anti-creationary] cause. (pp. 22-23 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "anti-creationist" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "anti-creationary".)

It was also about this time that a quarterly journal began publication, the sole purpose of which was to defend [evolutionary] theory and to attack [creationary] science in general, and to attempt to personally discredit [creationary] scientists. (p. 23 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" and "creation" to the genuine adjectives "evolutionary" and "creationary".)

Edwords has aspired to leadership in the [anti-creationary] crusade and has debated the author on several occasions, as well as other [creationary] scientists. (p.23 - I changed the attributive nouns "anti-creationist" and "creation" to the genuine adjectives "anti-creationary" and "creationary".)

This journal contains some articles that make a serious attempt to defend evolution against [creationary] arguments, as well as many that seek to vilify individual [creationary] scientists by attacking their scientific objectivity and personal objectivity. (p. 23 - ["This journal" = the journal, Creation/Evolution] I changed "creationist" and "creation" to "creationary".)

In fact, so many of the arguments presented in the journal are so shallow in scientific and intellectual content, and personal attacks on individual [creatonary] scientists are so frequent and intemperate, it is difficult for creationists to take the journal seriously. (p.23 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Awbrey and Thwaites have carried on a personal [anti-creationary] crusade, engaging [creationary] scientists in debate on a number of occasions, and teaching a creation/evolution course at San Diego State University. (p. 23 - I changed "anti-creationist" and "creation" to "creationary". It is true, the crusade was probably both "anti-creationist" (i.e., "against creationists") and "anti-creationary" (i.e., "against creation").)

Apparently feeling confident that they could prevail against [creationary] scientists on an equal-time basis, Awbrey and Thwaites invited scientists from the ICR staff to participate in the class, offering them half of the 26 lectures and even permitting them to prepare the test questions for their portion of the lectures. (pp. 23-24 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Also in about 1980, another important effort against [creationary] scientists was launched. (p. 24 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

The members of each local committee are dedicated to the fight against creationists, and the committees function by monitoring the activities of creationists, analyzing [creationary] arguments, preparing countermeasures, devising strategy, and exchanging advice and ideas. (p. 24 - ["the committees" = "Committees of Correspondence".] I changed "creationist" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] scientists soon began to hear the same arguments and see some of the same slides as they debated evolutionists around the country. (p. 24)

For a more complete history of these and others organized efforts against [creationary science and [creationary] scientists, consult The History of Modern Creationism, by Henry Morris (cited in Chapter 1). (p. 24 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

[Das Adjektiv "kreationär" [(1) kreationär/(2) kreationäre/(3) kreationärem/(4) kreationären/(5) kreationärer/(6) kreationäres] ist morphologisch ein echtes Adjektiv".]

The first book published against [creationary] science, Science Textbook Controversies and the Politics of Equal Time, was authored by Dorothy Nelkin, Professor of Sociology at Cornell University, in 1977. (pp. 24-25 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Unfortunately, her book contained numerous factual errors, and failed to give a fair appraisal of ICR and of [creationary] science. (p. 25 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

It would be nearly impossible to critique every critical book written by evolutionists against [creationary] science, or to answer in great detail each of their arguments. (p. 25 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

The reader should then be in a position to decide for himself whether [creationary] scientists have assembled a reasonably convincing case or whether their arguments are nothing more than pseudo-science rooted in religious ideas. (p. 25 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

3 Creation, Evolution, Science, and Religion

One of the most frequent criticisms hurled against [creationary] science by evolutionists, especially in the context of public education, is that it is religion, not science. (p. 27 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

(D. B. Wilson writes:)

After listening to [creationary] speakers, reading [creationary] writings, and talking with [creationary] students, we could see that [creation] was nothing more than a particular version of fundamentalist Christianity having no valid scientific content.

[cf. (Hans-Friedrich Tamke rewrote:) After listening to [evolutionist] speakers, reading [evolutionist] writings, and talking with [evolutionist] students, we could see that [evolutionism] was nothing more than a particular version of [modernist] Christianity having no valid scientific content. -

(D B. Wilson originally wrote:)

After listening to creationist speakers, reading creationist writings, and talking with creationist students, we could see that creationism was nothing more than a particular version of fundamentalist Christianity having no valid scientific content.]

(Gish quotes D. J. Futuyma.)

[Creationary] theories rest not on evidence that can withstand the skeptical mind, but on wishful thinking and the Bible, the voice of authority which is the only source of [creationary] belief.

[Creationary] scientists hasten to point out that they have no fight with science. In fact, it is precisely the facts of science that convince them that creation is far more credible, scientifically, than is evolution. The battle is with the evolutionary philsophy and faith, not science. (p. 30 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Of course, Bozarth would also agree with Julian Huxley when he stated that "In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural." (p. 30)

Huxley declared that:

...the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure will arise to serve the needs of the coming era.

Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, is an evolutionist who, while not converting to creation, has expressed serious doubts about some aspects of [evolutionary] theory which we will discuss later. (p. 31 - I changed the attributive noun "evolution" to the genuine adjective "evolutionary".)

(Gish quotes Patterson in the following sentence:)

Just as pre-Darwinian [creationary] biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian [evolutionary] biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity od Darwin.

The evolutionary fundamentalists among the ranks of its supporters demand unbending allegiance to its tenets. (p. 31)

Theories about origins, whether [creationary] or [evolutionary] theories, are of necessity basically very different from empirical scientific theories. (p. 32 - I changed the attribultive nouns "creation" and "evolution" to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary".)

[Evolutionary] theories do attempt to employ processes still acting today to explain how evolution may have occurred, but the time spans required to see if such ideas are correct involve tens of thousands of years, even millions of years, so no test of the theories is possible. (p. 33 - I changed "evolution" to "evolutionary".)

The ultimate question in the two conflicting theories on origins—creation and evolution—is: How did the universe and its living inhabitants come into existence? (p. 33 - cf. theory of creation/theory of evolution - creationary theory/evolutionary theory; creationist theory/evolutionist theory - creationistic theory/evolutionistic theory; creationism/evolutionism)

First, let us consider creation. Many, and probably the majority, of [creationary] scientists believe that it is very likely that the earth and the cosmos are quite young. (p. 33 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".) (cf. young-earth creationary/old-earth creationary theories)

Would that constitute a falsification of [creationary] theory? (p. 33 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

[Creationary] theories would merely be realigned so that all such theories would incorporate long time intervals between the [creationary] acts of God. (p. 33 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" and the genuine adjective "creative" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

To modern-day [creationary] scientists, therefore, it seems very likely, if not certain, that dogs, wolves, coyotes, and jackals have been derived from a single basic created kind through a natural, though limited, sorting out of genetic factors that were all part of the gene pool of the original created "dog" kind. (p. 34 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

These and similar events demonstrate that [creationary] scientists do not dogmatically cling to outmoded hypotheses and that [creationary] theory is a dynamic theory, with subsidiary hypotheses subject to test, being held tentatively by [creationary] scientists. (p. 34 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

Although it is easy enough to conceive of observations that might falsify, or at least cast into doubt, one or more of the subsidiary hypotheses which are derived from the general [creationary] model, yet it seems difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of an observation or an experiment that could ultimately falsify the general concept of special creation. (pp. 34-35 - I changed "creation" to "creationary".)

The non-falsifiability of the general theory of creation, that is, the notion that the ultimate origin of the universe and of its living inhabitants can be ascribed solely to a mechanistic, naturalistic, evolutionary process has been asserted by evolutionists and well as by creationists. (p. 35)

In the above statement, Popper was referring to Darwinian evolutionary theory, but in his later letter his remarks referred only to the theory of natural selection. (p. 35)

On that same occasion, Marcel Schützenberger, then Professor of Mathematics, University of Paris, with reference to evolutionary explanations, said:

A science consists also of a selection of questions or problems and of a general framework within which it can be decided if a question has been answered or not.

They have become part of an evolutionary dogma accepted by most of us as part of our training.

What Ehrlich and Birch seem to be saying is that [evolutionary] theory has become so plastic that it no longer makes any difference what the data may be, there will be some way to fit the data into the theory. (p. 37 - I changed "evolution" to "evolutionary".)

Evolutionists, in their stance before the lay public and the courts, often pretend that it is only ignorant and misguided creationists who are challenging the scientific status of evolutionary theory. When one reads the scientific literature and the philosophy of science literature, however, one finds that these evolutionists, when discussing challenges to the scientific status of [evolutionary] theory, do not even mention creationists! (p. 37 - I only changed "evolution" to "evolutionary" in the second sentence.)

Thus Douglas Futuyma, in his [anti-creationary] book, states that:

Two major kinds of argument about evolutionary theory occur within scientific circles. There are philosophical arguments about whether or not evolutionary theory qualifies as a scientific theory, and substantive arguments about the details of the theory and their adequacy to explain observed phenomena....

(pp. 37-38 - I changed "anti-creationist" to "anti-creationary". This is only part of the quote in Gish's book.)

Please not that Futuyma states that the challenge to the scientific status of evolutionary theory comes from within "scientific circles." This is a term that evolutionists reserve only for fellow evolutionists. (p. 38)

Ayala, of course, does not agree with those philosophers of science who challenge the scientific status of evolutionary theory, but he, as we shall see shortly, unwittingly revealed the fact that evolutionary theory, because it is so constructed that it explains everything and anything, no matter what the data are, does not qualify as a scientific theory. (p. 38)

On the next page of his chapter, Ayala states:

Natural selection can account for the different patterns, rates, and outcomes of evolutionary processes. Adaptive radiations in some cases, as well as lack of phyletic diversifications in others, rapid and slow rates in evolutionary change, profuse and limited genetic variation in populations; these and many other alternative occurrences can all be explained by postutlating the existence of appropriate environmental challenges.

(p. 39)

In other words, it makes no difference what the data turn out to be, one can imagine an evolutionary scenario to account for the data. (p. 39)

Thus, the theory of natural selection can be used to explain anything and everything:

1. Adaptive radiations which produce numerous and widely diverse evolutionary products; or little or no adaptive radiations, producing practically no phyletic diversification
2. Rapid rates in evolutionary change or slow rates in evolutionary change
3. Profuse genetic variations, or limited genetic variations
4. Many other alternative occurrences by postulating the existence of appropriate environmental challenges.

(p. 39)

In other words, the "explanatory" power of natural selection in evolutionary theory to account for what we see in the fossil record and among living creatures today is limited only by the powers of human imagination. (p. 40)

(Gish quotes Marjorie Grene in the following.)

... To such biologists—such as A. M. Dalcq of Brussels, O. Schindewolf of Tubingen, or A. Vandel of Toulouse—there appear in fact to be two divergent directions in the evolutionary story. .... For this, such dissenters feel, is the major evolutionary theme: great new inventions, new ideas of living, which arise with startling suddenness, proliferate in a variety of directions, yet persist with fundamental constancy—as in Darwinian terms they would have no reason in the world to do. ...

(pp. 40-41 - These two sentences containing the genuine adjective "evolutionary" are a small part of a much longer quotation from Marjorie Gene made by Duane Gish.)

If modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory leaves unasked these vital questions, one thing is certain—it provides no answers to those questions, and therefore is not about origins at all but is simply a lot of story telling about matters irrelevant to the basic question: How could and how did the living creatures on this earth come into existence? (p. 41)

(Gish quotes from David Hull's review in Science of the book Dimensions of Darwinism, edited by Marjorie Grene.)

The problem with explaining the structure of organisms in terms of past adaptations is that neither available evidence nor current theories of evolutionary mechanisms constrain such explanations very much. Indefinitely many alternative stories seem equally plausible.

(p. 41)

[cf. "Mikrokreation", "Makrokreation", "kreationärer Mechanismus", "kreationäre Mechanismen", "Mikroevolution", "Makroevolution", "evolutionärer Mechanismus", "evolutionäre Mechanismen", "mikrokreasjon", "makrokreasjon", "kreasjonær mekanisme", "kreasjonære mekanismer, "mikroevolusjon" "makroevolusjon", "evolusjonær mekanisme", "evolusjonære mekanismer"]

This is what the late Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the main architects of the neo-Darwinian mechanism, had to say about that:

These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible. ...

(p. 43 - This sentence is only a part of the quotation.)

Note that Dobzhansky is bitter with [creationary] scientists because they demand the applicability of the experimental method to evolutionary theory, which he admits is an impossibility. Yet it is precisely because of the impossibility of applying the experimental method to creation that Dobzhansky and most of his [evolutionary] colleagues demand the exclusion of [creationary] explanations in science and in the science classrooms. Evolutionists employ a double standard with reference to the teaching of [creationary] science and [evolutionary] science. (p. 42 - I changed the attributive nouns "creation" (thrice) and "evolutionist" (once)/"evolution" (once) to the genuine adjectives "creationary" and "evolutionary" in the sentences above.)

"Transformed cladists" are those taxonomists who, although they may be evolutionists, do not employ evolutionary theory in their practice of classifying organisms into species, genera, etc. Their classification system is based on similarities, particularly morphological characteristics that are unique and restrictive, rather than on assumed evolutionary ancestors or history. Colin Patterson, whom we have referred to earlier in this chapter, is one of these. (p. 42 - Who were our creationary ancestors? Wer waren unsere kreationären Vorfahren? Hvem var våre kreasjonære forfedre?)

Secondly, if the theoretical framework of evolutionary theory has very little impact on the progress of work in biological research and actually in some respects retards the progress in science, the oft-repeated statement that [evolutionary] theory is the great unifying concept of biology or that, as Matthews put it, "evolution is the backbone of biology," is not only without foundation but is objectively false. (p. 43)

In support of Patterson, one can readily cite several instances in which evolutionary theory has retarded progress in science. (p. 43)

This theory, sometimes referred to in the past as the "biogenetic law," is the notion that, for example, as the human embryo develops it recapitulates its evolutionary history by starting out as a single cell, then later resembling a fish, then a tadpole, later a reptile, then an ape, and finally a human. Research in embryology would have been more fruitful and thus would have made more rapid progress if it had been realized then, as it is now, that each embryo, plant or animal, is doing only what it must do to develop from a single, fertilized cell into an adult organism without any influence of a supposed evolutionary ancestry. (pp. 43-44)

For many years research on the true importance and function of such organs and structures as the pineal gland, the tonsils, and the appendix were neglected because, according to evolutionists, these were useless vestiges left over from our evolutionary history. The number of unnecessary and even harmful tonsillectomies and appendectomies that have been performed because of evolutionary teachings is probably in the millions. (p. 44)

One also wonders at the cost, in countless thousands of man-hours of research, of devising evolutionary phylogenies which not only serve no practical purpose but all of which are eventually discarded. In fact, the only sure thing that can be said about any evolutionary phylogeny or hypothetical evolutionary history is that it is certain to be discarded by future generations of evolutionists. Derek Ager, a professor of geology at the university of Swansea, Wales, and a vigorous anti-creationist, declared that:

It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student, from Trueman's Ostrea/Gryphea to Carruther's Raphrentis delanouei, have now been "debunked". Similarly, my own experience of more than twenty years looking for evolutionary lineages among the Mesozoic Brachiopoda has proved them equally elusive.

(p. 44)

Ager is abandoning gradualistic evolutionary theories for a jerky mode, involving, at least in part, catastrophic geological events. (p. 44)

He was the main witness on the philosophy of science for the [evolutionary] side in the trial held in Judge William Overton's Federal courtroom in Little Rock, Arkansas, in which Overton ruled that Act 590 of the Arkansas legislature, mandating equal treatment for [creationary] science and [evolutionary] science, was unconstitutional. (p. 45 - "He" refers to Michael Ruse. I changed the attributive nouns "evolutionist"/"evolution" and "creation" to the genuine adjectives "evolutionary" and "creationary".)

Not only has the decision not been challenged by most of those in the "scientific community" (the community of evolutionists), but evolutionists have gleefully and incessantly trumpeted Overton's decision wherever the subject of [creationary] science is mentioned or discussed. (p. 45 - I changed the attributive noun "creation" to the genuine adjective "creationary".)

Ruse has published a spirited defense of evolutionary theory in general and of neo-Darwinism in particular. (p. 46)

In his book, beginning on p. 131, Ruse has a section describing the objections to Darwinian evolutionary theory (or more particularly, neo-Darwininism) under the heading, "Darwinism as Metaphysics." As one reads this section it becomes clear that almost all of the critics are evolutionists, or at least not creationists. Extensive quotes will be taken from this section in order to document these challenges to the scientific status of evolutionary theory. (p. 46)

(Gish quotes Ruse at length. Here I only give the sentence in which the adjective "evolutionary" is used.)

... It is claimed that Darwinism evolutionary theory—the critics usually lump together indifferently both past and present versions—is no genuine scientific theory at all. ...

(p. 46, Ruse's italics)

... But then moving on to biology, coming up against Darwinism, they feel compelled to make the same judgment: Darwinian evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable. ...

(p. 48 - These italicized words are from a quote from Karl Popper that Michael Ruse makes, which are in turn quoted by Duane Gish.)

... The critics think they know the source of all the trouble. Darwinism is no genuine scientific theory because it rests on a bogus mechanism: natural selection. Far from being an empirically testable, putative cause of evolutionary change, natural selection is no scientific claim at all: it is a vacuous tautology. ...

(p. 50 - Ruse's italics)

Last Modified: 20 October 2006
Page Started: 27 April 2006